Ha! Our current President lied under oath just like Clinton!

[probativev]

It has finally come to light now that the real current US President, Karl Rove, lied when he told the prosecutors that he was not the source that leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. According the the Washington Post:

Rove and his lawyer's denials that he was involved in telling reporters about Plame now appear to be at best based on Clintonian hairsplitting about whether he literally used her name and identified her as covert or he simply described her as the CIA-employed wife of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV,

As for the Bush Administration, aka Rove's spouse and significant other, their denial that Rove was involved was either also a lie, or Rove lied to them. I kinda feel sorry for them. Maybe they should give Hillary a call and ask for advice to see about what to do now to ensure their own political survival.

I'm having Monica Lewinsky flashbacks right now.....

[elliebea]

I don't think this will go anywhere Probative, although I surely wish otherwise.

The reason I think the administration will evade responsibility for this despicable deed (in addition to everything else) is: 1) the political climate isn't yet ripe enough to accept charges of treason (or perjury, or even political scandal) no matter what 'smoking guns' appear; and 2) The relevant Federal statute concerning the revelation of an undercover operative's name requires knowledge of same. Rove's lawyer has been using the qualifier "knowingly" in public statements, ie. though he (Rove) revealed that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife, he didn't know she was an undercover operative, therefore the damage was not done "knowingly." That's all the difference it takes. Otherwise, by the way, it would be treason, legally speaking, and punishable by death (in the extreme case).

I hope I'm wrong on this one. Watching Bush and minions get away with outrage after outrage is getting to be pretty unbearable. Remember when there was such a political fuss over Clinton's first two nominations for Attorney General? The candidates had failed to pay the social security contributions on wages for their nannies. NOW we've got an Attorney General who wrote the legal justification for Bush to authorize abuse and/or torture! Forget the Geneva Conventions -- they're now "quaint."

By the way, Valerie Plame's career was ruined, her life and possibly others' put in danger, etc.

[tongueincheek]

Rove and his shrub puppet scare the bewhosis out of me. He's been too successful at getting citizens to believe his lies and half-truths, and if he gets away with this one, then what is next?

[RA5CViggie]

You're damn right Rove is getting off. There's no SEX involved, therefore no moral violation.

[dec5]

Another view......;)


www.redstate.org/story/20...23368/2989 (http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/10/23368/2989)

Leon H. at RedState sums up:

So let's review - Wilson lied about how he got to Niger, he lied about seeing a report that didn't even exist at the time, he lied about the conclusions of his own report(!), he lied about what the administration had been told, and his wife, Valerie Plame, specifically sent him on a mission to intentionally debunk a claim, not to find facts or perform inspections. I'd say the WaPo's (Washington Post) conclusion is pretty sound on this one.

Also, it certainly gives life to the question of why the heck these two lied so darn much in absence of a clear and compelling political agenda driving their every move. Let's not rush to make these partisan hacks into saints - they attempted to cook the books against the administration and got busted for being the compulsive liars that they are. In the course of attempting to discredit the ludicrously false claims, someone in the White House (presumably Rove) told the press that Wilson was sent to Niger on dubious premises in the first place (the recommendation of his wife), without giving the name of Wilson's wife, which Rove apparently did not know.

When this story first broke on the scene, I thought that Rove should properly be banished from the administration team, despite the fact that even at that time it was pretty clear that no crime took place. However, given the serial and politically motivated lies of Wilson and Plame, it's clear that the fairy tale the liberals have constructed in which Plame was the heroic CIA agent unjustly outed by Arch-Demon Karl Rove is totally and completely false - and I won't be shedding any more tears about either of their fates.



More Stuff:


Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.





Washington Post Article.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp...ailarticle (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle)

[kwanfanatic2002]

DEC5, thanks for that. The left is wrong again. There was no crime committed.

According to Victoria Toensing, who actually wrote the law, a person must have been working overseas for at least 5 yrs, must be covert (working at Langley) does ot qualify. She does not meet any of this criteria. There was NO crime committed. Sorry dims.

My husband wonders if Judith Miller is in jai because her "source" will exonerate Karl Rove and she is not about to do that. He also said that the dims are trying to get back at Karl Rove because of his recent comments regarding 9/11 and the left. I think my hubby is right on both accounts. WE have heard it from other people as well. I think it's pretty sad how the left is trying so hard to get Bush and his admins.

All the dims do is criticize, complain, obstruct, lie, spin and call for peoples resignations. how boring. yawn, yawn yawn.

[probativev]

Sorry dims.

uh...does it really have to get so personal?

[attyfan]

The issue of whether Rove committed a crime is different from whether he lied under oath. For example, in Clinton's case, he lied under oath, but it wouldn't be a crime (i.e, perjury) unless it was material (whether it is reasonably probable that his lie was the kind of thing that could cause a difference in the outcome of Paula Jones's lawsuit) -- this was the really weak point in the case against him. Similarly, that Rove may not have committed a crime doesn't alter the fact that he lied.

[Sparks]

Well, it was Wilson who thought it was Karl Rove who outed his wife all along (before the election...not just recently) You can split hairs all you want and say that this is not a crime, but her outing put her into danger and her outing happened because her husband spoke out against the Bush Administration's claims that Niger was selling yellow-cake to Iraq (BTW, another lie manufactured by Bush to justify the unjust war in Iraq).
When this story first broke, Bush himself said that if anyone from the White House was responsible for the leak, they would be fired. Now, is Bush going to fire his man Karl, or is that another lie too?

[elliebea]

In light of that full-fledged WaPo attack on Wilson -- an outright smear job -- it might be a good idea to remember what this is really all about, and that is that the president spoke an untruth, knowingly or not, in his SoU address regarding attempted dealings between Iraq and Niger. Since Iraq, it has now been proven over and over, didn't have any nuclear capability at all since the early 90's (although it did have plenty of uranium hence no need for any more), any such claim about nuclear potential was a falsehood. This was committed numerous times by this adminstration.

I found it helpful to reread Wilson's original editorial from July 2003 in which he debunked the Niger-uranium claim. It shows how reasonible, responsible and thorough he was:

What I Didn't Find in Africa (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm)

by Joseph C. Wilson 4th
July 6, 2003

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.
. . .
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq - and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors - they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government - and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program - all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

I've read that Bush the Elder honored Joseph Wilson with a commendation and an ambassadorship because of a heroic, life-risking effort he (Wilson) had made in protecting 800 American citizens in Iraq just prior to the first Gulf war.

Also, that Karl Rove was fired from Bush the Elder's 1992 campaign for leaking damaging information on someone to Robert Novak.

[kwanfanatic2002]

Bush and Rovew ar not the liars, it's JOE WILSON AND VALERIE PLAME. They are lying through their teeth.

Judith Miller is in jail because of the NYTimes. She is a liar. She was given a waiver to testify and didn't want to. Who is she protecting????? Another member of the press? A Seantor?
Herself? Her husband??.

The NYTimes is trying to take the attention away from those two and blame it all on Karl Rove. They don't want to look like fools and be embarrased by the release of Miller's source. I heard on the radio that their is a rumor going around DC that Karl Rove heard that Plame was with the CIA, froma REPORTER.

The Senators and press are trying to act all self righteous and holy, when in fact, they are making fools of themselves.

The left is so desperate. Another of their hopes to get Rove and Bush are shot down. How sad. They embarrassed themselves yesterday trying to grill Scott McCllellan with heated questions of Karl Rove. Talk about media bias. It is so pathetic. No wonder their ratings die more every day. They were so angry when Scott would not answer their questions. Why did they not act so angry when jant Reno would not answer their questions, or Clinton's Press Sec.???? What a bunch of hyprocrites.

There is nothing to this story and the press and the left are trying desperately to make something of it. Acting so indignant. She did work for the CIA for 9 yrs before this came out. SHe was a covert employeee. it is not even known if she ever did for sure. The press is purposely ignoring the facts , trying so hard to get Bush and Rove. It is embarrassing and pathetic. Rove and bush have not lied. Wilson and Plame have both lied- thru their collective teeth. Never in any way, did Karl Rove put her or anyone else in danger, like was posted in this thread earlier. That is a bunch if hooey. Ridiculous actually.typical lib spin.
WIlson named her in his online biography, how undercover could she have been?

[probativev]

The difference between Joe Wilson and Val Palme lying, as opposed to Karl Rove lying, is that Rove is the President of the United States...and the backbone of the party that proclaims itself to be the standard bearer for morality. Wilson and Palme never claimed they were holier than thou. But Rove, as president of the United States and leader of the free world, should conduct himself to a higher standard.:p

[kwanfanatic2002]

Since when is Karl Rove President of the US???????? I could have sworn I vote for BUSH.

There is nothing wrong with how Rove is acting. He is acting the way he should. The Dems are the ones who need to act like grown ups and stop lying and blaming everyone but themselves. ^hey have absolutely no credibilty left.

[tongueincheek]

Another well thought out, intelligent, objective response backed with all kinds of facts, kwanfanatic2002. Except not.

Bush Junior is the Charlie McCarthy puppet, and Karl Rove and his big business financial backers are the Edgar Bergen puppetmasters. They are the ones who put the words into Bush's mouth, they are the decision makers. You did vote for Rove, you just didn't realize it.

[kwanfanatic2002]

YOu and the rest of your libs friends are RIDICULOUS AND SADLY MISINFORMED. NO WONDER YOPU KEEP LOSING ELECTIONS

[tongueincheek]

Well, except I didn't lose an election. I am an independent, remember? Non-partisan. Go look it up.

How ironic that you think *WE* are the ones who are misinformed! :lol

[manskater]

KF said YOu and the rest of your libs friends are RIDICULOUS AND SADLY MISINFORMED. NO WONDER YOPU KEEP LOSING ELECTIONS

Sadly you are mistaken in your facts again --- In the 2004 election the my "lib friends" won back the state legistlature in Colorado and a Senate seat and it looks pretty good for my "lib friends" to win back the governorship in 2006.:D Slowly but surely most people are seeing right through the lies of many of the republicans including those in control of the White House.

[elliebea]

KF - Since you've totally mangled the GOP Talking Points that are your duty to memorize by rote, I offer them to you (while holding my nose, for all the lies they contain) so you'll have more confidence . . . or something:

GOP Talking Points (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discr e_0712.html)

Leftists here might be interested in a glance at these too. It's a fascinating and actually somewhat hilarious concept that the specifics of the lies have to be broken down and enumerated like this for conservatives to parrot. They actually capitalize the first letter of Every Word Like This I Guess to Get Their Followers to Really Read Every Word. The GOP knows the reading habits of its own flock!

[manskater]

I just realized that Bush stated that if he found that a member of his troupe was the one who leaked the info on Valerie Plame, he would be taken care of. Hmmmmmmmm....maybe another "medal of freedom" like the one given to Rumsfeld is on the way.:rolleyes

[Krista]

taken care of as in he would be dealt with in a disciplinary fashion? or taken care of as in protected?

[kwanfanatic2002]

YAWN YAWN YAWN. LOL, ROFL. You guys are nuts. The Repbls don't need libs or moderates to give them talking points.Maybe you all could take a lesson from us, in how to tin elections.!!!!. We are in complete control of the WH, SENATE, CONGRESS AND WILL BE AGAIN IN 06 AND 08. Your comments zre just typical garbage the left is spewing. it is totally laughable. This is a non story, Rove is not involoved and you all cannot stand it because once again your rubbish is shot to he**. Next try?????// Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson and the rest of the left are a joke.You are the ones who need the help. You will never again win an election carrying on the way you do. Making excuses for liars and everything else is pathetic, embarassing and childish.

here is a good article about WIlson and Plame and the NYTimes and who is really guilty.
IS HYPORCRISY STILL A VICE?? (http://powerlineblog.com)

[tongueincheek]

That's not a news article, that's somebody's blog. And speaking of yawn, yawn, yawn, when are going to come up with something new and original to say? You posts so far all say the same thing, it's always "you dems this, you libs that, you lie, you're pathetic." How about trying this: "I believe in Rove and here's why. Fact 1. Fact 2. Fact 3. Reliable source cited....." Something like that would actually be interesting to read.

[kwanfanatic2002]

I have posted plenty of facts. They are jsut not facts that you and the libs like. You are all disugsting. Youa re trying to blame an innocent man because you cannot get Bush. Your "facts" have been shot down. You and the left have been given ample proof and you cannot accept it.

[Krista]

!!!!!!

here we go with the "disgusting" stuff again.

Y'know you never get anywhere with anyone by constantly resorting to that kind of discourse, and you certainly aren't going to get anyone to see your point of view. Who wants to see anyone's point of view when they're constantly arguing like that, and calling others disgusting. Besides, resorting to things like that doesn't reinforce your argument. It just makes you look bad. People are people. Democrats, Republicans, etc etc. Everyone thinks that their side is right most of the time. But what you and everyone else needs to remember is that everyone cares, otherwise they wouldn't be discussing any of this. To call someone disgusting because they care enough to have an interest in politics, and actually take the time to talk about it, makes absolutely no sense.

[kwanfanatic2002]

What I am saying is digusting DMB is how theya re portraying Rove as a liar and already having him accused and found guilty. They have been shown PLENTY of facts and continue to try and discredit an innoncent man, DMB.. Yes, that is disgusting and cheap. I know we are all people and I know we all have opinions and care about polititics BUT, they need to blame the person who is guilty. It is NOT ROVE. Get the facts straight and stop accusing someone of doing something he is NOT GUILTY of. That is something the left cannot do these days. That is all they have left in their party these days. Lay the blame where the blame belongs. it is not with ROVE and it is not with the BIG BAD REPUBLICANS.

[madison]

DMBchic,
I salute you! You CAN think for yourself, and I find that hopeful.
Personally, I am giving this story time, because I think Mr. Rove will have the opportunity to lie under oath, or maybe as The Daily Show said last night, he may be appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; given that bad intel from George Tenet earned him the Medal of Freedom,, and Condi Rice ignoring the memo that Bin Laden was determined to strike within the US earned her the position of Secretary of State.
No, this is not over by a long shot. I am just going to sit back and enjoy the fireworks.
Let's not forget that Judith Miller from the NY Times has been in jail for a week just because she received info on this scandel-in-the-making, and did not even write/publish a piece on it. Kinda reminds me of good, ole Siberia and the Soviet Union.<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/eyes.gif" />

[kwanfanatic2002]

You are unbelievable ml.

Here is a bit of newsflash for the left.
If everyone who talked off the record to a news reporter about supposedly classified material were fired, there would be nobody left in Washington DC. so for democrats to act so outraged over that is more than just a bit hypocritical.
So far, there is nothing new.Rove came clean with about that he said a long time ago, testified to a grand jury and has been told by the special prosecutor that he's not a target. If he's not a target then that would mean that the prosecutor does not believe that Rove committed a crime.

Here's something for you to think about--- assuming of course that you aren't so deeply entrenched in the liberal mentality that the idea of actually think something is out of the qustion. Where do we get the idea that VP was an undercover agent for the CIA when Rove had his conversation w/ Time Mag. Reporter Matthew Cooper?From Bush critic Joe Wilson and from the media, that's where. At no time has there has been any confirmation that Plame was covert. if she wasn;'t covert, there is no crime.

Did Rove cross a line,,, screw up... make a mistake? You can make that case. Hismotive was to prrevent Cooper from reporting false facts in a Time Magazine story about Wilson. The fact is there is no evidence whoatsoever tht Rove broke any law . For right now there is also no way Bush is going to give the left the satisfaction of firing him. Right now, this is the #1 issue for the Democrats.

The democrats are looking for a trophy. They want ahead on a stake that they can wave before the voters during the next year's Congressional elections.

Whoa re they protecting? It couldn't possibly be Rove. The Times would roll over him in a second.How could they resist the chance to pile on against their nemesis, George W Bush?

That's the real story here... and the mainstreaming media is missing it. It's not Rove, it's who Judith Miller is protecting.

And don't forget a likely possibility: that the prosecutor will wrap things up and nobody will be indicted. Can you imagine the rage of the left then????
All Rove all the time (http://boortz.com)

[elliebea]

People are people. Democrats, Republicans, etc etc. Everyone thinks that their side is right most of the time. But what you and everyone else needs to remember is that everyone cares, otherwise they wouldn't be discussing any of this. To call someone disgusting because they care enough to have an interest in politics, and actually take the time to talk about it, makes absolutely no sense.

Great post, DMB! I agree with Motherlode, though I think I'll just blow you a kiss instead of the salute. I'm not a scout, or a member of the military.

[elliebea]

I don't know who might have read the Powerline blog entry entitled "Is Hypocrisy Still a Vice?," but I did and found that its central point is almost hilarious, considering its viciously anti-left position.

The "hypocrisy" refers to the supposed outing of the commerical airline cover for the CIA practices of 'extraordinary renditions.' In other words, this writer is accusing the so-called leftist NYTimes of blowing the cover on this atrocious practice of sending unwanted persons ('suspects') to countries who have no compunctions about the worst kinds of torture, including Uzbekistan. The airline company name has been reported a whole lot of places, not just NYT.

I wonder if the writer even realized what he/she was doing?

[madison]

KF wrote:


<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> You are unbelievable ml. <hr></blockquote>

KF, that's the nicest thing you have ever said to me! Thanks.<img border=0 src="http://home.comcast.net/~luenatic/skatingpic/mk_SpreadEagle2.gif" />

[manskater]

Motherlode --how about this ...you are unbelievably NICE....;)

[moxie]

"And don't forget a likely possibility: that the prosecutor will wrap things up and nobody will be indicted. Can you imagine the rage of the left then????"

Actually, many investigations end without an indictment. What's the big deal? I've talked with many people on "the left" in the case, both in and out of the media, and I've never encountered anyone who was salivating for an indictment. Most comments have been on the order of: "I wonder what will be in the report once the investigation is done." I, for one, would be greatly surprised if there are any charges.

"That's the real story here... and the mainstreaming media is missing it. It's not Rove, it's who Judith Miller is protecting."

KF, don't you realize that if Judith Miller is actually protecting someone (hard to know because she didn't even write a story on the CIA leak case), it's very likely a government source? That is the whole point of the investigation by the special prosecutor (who in fact was appointed by Bush).

Judith Miller is protecting her own promise to her source to not reveal that source's name. She was willing to go to jail to not go back on her word. And if her source (if she even had one) turns out to be Karl Rove or someone else from the Bush administration, you should consider her a hero who wouldn't "rat" on the administration.
You should be praising her, not tearing her down.

[probativev]

This whole thing is not unlike what happened during the Clinton admin. Face it, both parties make similar mistakes. When the Clinton people did it, the conservatives wanted them hung and burnt. When the Bush people did it, it's the liberals' turn. In the end, no one can claim that they are "right" because people are always bias against or for what happened based on their political alliance. And it's impossible for these government/politicians people to proclaim innocence or be found guilty because inside the Beltway, things are in shades of gray and not pure black or white.

IMO, Bush's headaches with what's happenning to Rove doesn't even come close to the venom the Republicans mounted against Clinton for Whitewater, which in the end even what's his face special prosector who wrote the Lewinsky trash novel couldn't even find anything to charge the Clintons for (I'm talking about Whitewater). And yet, Susan Thomases went to jail much like Judith Miller. Sometimes, that's just the way it goes, and there are people who would go to jail to protect those whom they deemed worth it.

The way I see it, if the Republicans are upset that the Democrats are playing dirty now, they've got themselves to blame as well. Not because Rove really did something illegal, we don't know for sure yet. But it was the Republicans who started playing down and dirty spouting rage when Clinton was in office. The Dems, well they are a bit behind but they're just taking a page from the Republicans' playbook. They're trying to play the game like the Republicans, and truth be told I think they're only doing a C graded job because they're still nowhere near as venomous as the Republicans were. So KF, if you find what's happening disgusting, you are now getting a taste of what it was like for people on the other side back during the Clinton era. But hey, for what it's worth, it's still better than being in the minority with little power. So what if people are spouting all sorts of allegations, as long as your butt is sitting comfortably in the White House.

Personally, I wish we can go back when things were more civilized.

[michelle2006]

ProbativeV, gosh, I loved that post!!!!

[EigthAv]

Accusing our President of perjury is a rather serious accusation.Can you prove it? Can you prove former President Clinton commited perjury? The media runs around praying for Presdential scandals.It's been going on,I would guess,since Washington invented cherry poptarts. If Bush lied,okay cool,but do you have proof?

[ladybugs]

Here is my support for Kwanfanatic. I couldn't have said it better. You came out with all the facts and I know exactly what you mean. Karl Rove has not committed a crime. The left will go to any extent to tear President George W. Bush down. It is sad that they are going to spend the next 3 years of their lives wallowing in despair and pulling at straws. What a pity.

Does anyone remember what ole SANDY BERGER had done? Remember he tried to sneak out some important legal documents? What ever happened to that story? You don't hear the left coming out and going after SANDY BERGER now, do ya? What was HE - SANDY BERGER trying to hide?

I can't wait for President George W. Bush to pick a supreme court justice. I heard Ted Olsen (the husband of Barbara Olsen who lost her life on 9/11 on the plane that hit the pentagon) was a name that came up too. I think he would be a good choice.

Michelle Kwan fan!!! That's me!!! Gold in 2006!!! :TOS

[dec5]

:lol kwanfanatic2002!!!! You always seem to be in the middle of a good debate!!!! You are always faithful
in fighting the good fight!!!!! Man I am glad you are
on our side! I love your posts buddy!!!! :D



Now to the Clintons...hee hee..........








Clinton lied to a grand jury, lied to the American people
and looked them straight in the eye and said he didn't have
sex with a intern. And let all his minions defend him until
he admitted he lied......

Ken Starr is a hero....and he never has said anything
as trashy as the Clintons have. Including the foolish
thing Hilary said about GW this week. The Bushes have
never returned such insults...IMO they should.....



As for the Clinton Democrats record on lies....



GW and Rove are no way near that.....even with the WMDs
which the British still say Saddam still tried to buy.



GW and Rove should and will prevail.


BTW the deficit is down and unemployment is down to 5%

Thanks to GW and Rove.



How about trying this: "I believe in Rove and here's why. Fact 1. Fact 2. Fact 3. Reliable source cited....." Something like that would actually be interesting to read.









Here is why I believe in Rove....Fact 1 2 and 3.....

Washington Times gives Rove's side of the story.
(Contains so called Republican talking points...that
cannot be debated..hee hee...)


Fact 1. Rove is hiding nothing and signed a waiver
to show everything to the investigation.



In particular, Rove was urging caution because then-CIA Director George J. Tenet was about to issue a statement regarding Iraq's alleged interest in African uranium and its inaccurate inclusion in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Tenet took the blame for allowing a misleading paragraph into the speech, but Tenet also said that the president, vice president and other senior officials were never briefed on Wilson's report.

After the investigation into the leak began, Luskin said, Rove signed a waiver in December 2003 or January 2004 authorizing prosecutors to speak to any reporters Rove had previously engaged in discussion, which included Cooper.

"His written waiver included the world," Luskin said. "It was intended to be a global waiver. . . . He wants to make sure that the special prosecutor has everyone's evidence. That reflects someone who has nothing to hide."

www.washingtonpost.com/wp...01000.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071001000.html)



Fact 2. The person who helped make the law that folks
are accusing that Rove broke says he didn't break the
law. (Just giving a source on a fact that K2002 already pointed out.)


www.newsmax.com/archives/...1829.shtml (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/11/221829.shtml)

Monday, July 11, 2005 10:16 p.m. EDT

Deputy AG: Valerie Plame Leak Not Illegal

The White House press corps lapsed into a full-blown feeding frenzy on Monday over the news that Karl Rove is identified in emails from Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper as someone who mentioned that Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA - just days before her name was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

But the former deputy attorney general who helped draft Intelligence Identities Protection Act - which Bush critics insist was violated when Valerie Plame was identified to Novak - said earlier this year that it's unlikely any laws were broken in the case.


Fact 3: Wilson's wife was a desk jockey not a field
operative.


Based on the e-mail message, Mr. Rove's disclosures are not criminal, said Bruce S. Sanford, a Washington lawyer who helped write the law and submitted a brief on behalf of several news organizations concerning it to the appeals court hearing the case of Mr. Cooper and Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times.

"It is clear that Karl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into that category" of criminal conduct, Mr. Sanford said. "That's not 'knowing.' It doesn't even come close."

There has been some dispute, moreover, about just how secret a secret agent Ms. Wilson was.

"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."

www.nytimes.com/2005/07/1...nd&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/politics/12rove.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5090&en=c73f7e2a1dfee14b&ex=1278820800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

[moxie]

There are two completely separate issues here:

1. Did Rove commit a crime in discussing Valerie Plame with a reporter? The answer to that depends on 1) if she were actually an undercover agent; and 2) if Rove knew that she was undercover and mentioned her name anyway, for whatever reason. The standard of proof for this is pretty high, so Rove will likely not be charged with a crime, but that is the job of the federal prosecutor to determine.

2. Did Rove lie and/or attempt to cover up his role in this matter? It's pretty obvious that he did, because if he hadn't, it wouldn't have taken until this week for his name to be finally given to the prosecutor (by Cooper). And if he had been forthcoming when the Plame/Novak matter first surfaced years ago, there wouldn't have been much need for the federal prosecutor's investigation, which has now been going on for TWO YEARS.

Rove himself will likely not be charged with a crime as an individual, but that is not really the most important issue at this point. Here are the really serious questions for Rove, the Bush administration and this country: Why did it take TWO YEARS for Rove's name to finally come out? Why didn't he just announce he was the source TWO YEARS AGO? What was he hiding and why?

Also: Did anyone else in the administration know he was the source and not report this information?

And most importantly: Just how much did Bush know and when did he know it?

[kwanfanatic2002]

tHANKS deC5 , LADYBUGS AND EIGHTAVE, YOU ARE RIGHT AGAIN. (Mike, it's good to see you posting again. I guess you came out Ok in the hurricane huh!!!) I'm glad you did.
I would like to see the left try and defend Clinton and his actions. His acts were inexcusable.

Ladybugs, Sandy Burglar got his hand slapped if I remember correctly. The press didn't report on that hardly at all. hmmmmm, I wonder why.!!!!. blatant bias is why.
I would not mind if Ted Olsen was the DS nominee. HE is a good honest, decent man. He has character, he is a strict Constitutinalist too, which is what the SC desperately needs right now. I have heard his name mentioned a few times as well. It sounds like Bush is going to name his nominee very soon.

Dec5, thanks for the nice words. I'm glad to be on your side as well, along with ladybugs and candygirl and Eightave.We need all the support we can get. You all are so right about the facts you posted. You could give them facts all day long and they would spin it to suit their so called "facts".
ROVE DID NOTHING WRONG, NOTHING ILLEGAL AND NETHER DID PRESIDENT BUSH MOXIE. Now, the libs are trying to say that Rove lied to PRESIDENT BUSH> What a bunch of desperate lies. It is ridiculous. There first claims were not substaniated, so now they are going to try this. Just goes to show how desperate they are. Ladybugs and Eightave, your posts were great too. I would like for them to TRY and defend CLinton. Funny, how now they are also blaming the Republicans now for all this too. Clinton was not mistreated during his Presidency. He was treated with kid gloves from the left and given a pass many times. unbelievable. how desperate they are.

Judith Miller is not procting anyone from Bush's admins. That is absurd. She does not even like them. Why would she go to prison for Bush or Rove or anyone else for that matter? SHe is most likely protecting herself.or another reporter. My father always said while I was growning up, that you might as well tell the truth because what you do in the night, will come out in the light. He made sure we always did tell the truth When you tell one lie, you have to tell another to cover up for the first one, plus you have to remember what you said. I cannot stand liars and Plame and Wilson hve told plenty. There is no defending either of them.
For the umpteenth time, ROVE IS NOT THE SOURCE, HE DID NOT DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL. GET OVER IT.
The press is trying desperately to pin something on Rove and Bush and they are failing. Their pathetic obvious biasis showing. The left is shot down again. This is a non story and ti's time for them to move on to their try to get Rove and Bush.

[elliebea]

This article by Greg Palast sums up the point of view I've develped over the past two+ years on this whole stinking mess:

Mr. Rove and the Access of Evil (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0713-23.htm)
Greg Palast

The only thing more evil, small-minded and treacherous than the Bush Administration's jailing Judith Miller for a crime the Bush Administration committed, is Judith Miller covering up her Bush Administration "source."

Judy, Karl Rove ain't no "source." A confidential source -- and I've worked with many -- is an insider ready to put himself on the line to blow the whistle on an official lie or hidden danger. I would protect a source's name with my life and fortune as would any journalist who's not a craven jerk (the Managing Editor of Time Magazine comes to mind).

But the weasel who whispered "Valerie Plame" in Miller's ear was no source. Whether it was Karl Rove or some other Rove-tron inside the Bush regime (and no one outside Bush's band would have had this information), this was an official using his official info to commit a crime for the sole purpose of punishing a REAL whistleblower, Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, for questioning our President's mythological premise for war in Iraq.

New York Times reporter Miller and her paper would rather she go to prison for four months than identify their "source." Why?

Part of her oddball defense is that The Times never ran the story about Wilson's wife. They get no points for that. The Times SHOULD have run the story with the headline: BUSH OPERATIVE COMMITS FELONY TO PUNISH WHISTLEBLOWER. The lead paragraph should have been, "Today, Mr. K--- R--- [or other slime ball as appropriate] attempted to plant sensitive intelligence information on The New York Times, a felony offense, in an attempt to harm former Ambassador Joseph Wilson who challenged the President's claim regarding Iraq's nuclear program."

A Karl Rove or Rove-like creature peddling a back-door smear doesn't make him a source. Miller's real crime is not concealing a source, but burying the story. A reporter should never, ever give notes to a grand jury, but this information is something The Times owes the PUBLIC, not the prosecutors.

Why didn't The Times run this story? Why not now? Who are they covering for and why?

Maybe the problem for The Times is that this is the same "source" that used Miller to promote, as fact, her ersatz report before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam truly had nukes and bugs and chemicals he could launch at Los Angeles. That "source" too needs publication, Judy.

Every rule has an exception. My mama always told me to "compliment the chef" at dinner. But that doesn't apply when the chef pees in your soup. Likewise, there's an exception to the rule of source protection. When officialdom uses "you-can't-use-my- name" to cover a lie, the official is not a source, but a disinformation propagandist -- and Miller and The Times have been all too willing to play Izvestia to the Bush's Kremlinesque prevarications.

And that is what Miller is protecting: the evil called "access."
. . .
As Karl Rove chuckles and Judy does time, we are left to ask, What are Miller and The New York Times doing: protecting the name of a source or covering up their conduit to the Bush gang's machinery of deception?
. . .
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

[kwanfanatic2002]

give it up, the story is over, the left is going to try and bleed this "story" for as long as they can and they is nothing there. It is sad how you all are trying so hard to blame an innoncent man. When this all comes out and it proved that Rove and Bush did nothing wrong, are you going to apologize???? I didn't think so!!.

Joe Wilson is a supporter of both HILLARY AND KERRY(that is his first mistake). He refuses to admit he is a DEMOCRAT,
He donated OVER $8000 to DEMOCRATS, including $2000 to John Kerry in03. $1000 to Hillary Hillpac in 02 and $3000 to Al Gore in 99.
WIlson endorsed JOHN KERRY IN 03 and advised the Kerry Campaign

WILSON ADMITS IT WOULD BE A COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE I VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN, EVEN FOR DOG CATCHER
Joe Wilson's top ten WORST Inaccuracies and Misstatements (http://gop.com)

sounds to me like someone who is out to get Rove and Pres. Bush.

[probativev]

Ken Starr is a hero....and he never has said anything as trashy as the Clintons have

You can't be serious! Sheesh. It was from Ken Starr that I now can never look at cigars, altoids and black dresses the same way EVER again. The man outdid Jackie Collins and the Starr Report was definitely one of the biggest trash novel ever written.

GW and Rove are no way near that.....even with the WMDs

Ok whatever, if you say so. At least no one died from whatever stupid things Clinton said about his sex scandal. And about the WMDs, if you think that wasn't a lie, then technically, Clinton didn't have a sexual relations with Lewinsky either. So then by your standard Clinton didn't lie either. You either set the threshold for truth high for both adminstrations, or set it low. You can't have both ways so that the Bush administration wasn't technically lying, and then turn around and charge that Clinton lied for similar mangle of words.

Sematics, sematics. Why can't everyone just admit that we (that's everybody "WE", Repubs, Dems, Greens whatever) are all totally, utterly biased and that's why whoever we support is always right and whoever we don't is always wrong, and reasons and logic are besides the point?

[manskater]

Some posters want to paint Wilson as some sort of liberal democrat because he supported Kerry. Yea, okay...:rolleyes however they should get their FACTS straight again. Wilson has served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. He also has the right to support whoever he wants for political offices, just like you and me.

Secondly KF seems to conveniently leave out the fact that Wilson voted for the first "Bush". He also served as acting ambassador in Baghdad during the 1st Bush's presidency when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Seems Bush had some nice things to say about Wilson.

"It is relatively easy to speak out from the safety and comfort of Washington; what you are doing day in and day out under the most trying conditions is truly inspiring. Keep fighting the good fight; you and your stalwart colleagues are always in our thoughts and prayers."

--President George H.W. Bush, from a November 29, 1990, telegram to Acting Ambassador Joseph Wilson in Baghdad

Wilson was not the one who tried to out a CIA operative, Rove was no matter how many lawyers he tries to hide behind. As the old cliche goes , ..If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.......

[mr pru]

Agreed.

I await the emotional onslaught involving words such as get over it, disgusting, despise, grow up, pity, feel sorry for, etc.

Rove could come on national TV and admit the truth and certain members of this forum would try and find some way to spin the truth in an entirely different direction.

The blatant narrow-mindset of said members has grown quite tiresome.

People of intelligence can see through the emotional, factless, sourceless, ranting.

Nothing will come of this mess involving Mr. Rove. Eigth is correct-the apathy of this country is at an all-time high. It's kind of like the majority of people have become Stepford citizens or something.

This is just another classic example of the bumbling, stumbling, and outright deception that this administration has made its trademark.

How sad.

[moxie]

ROVE DID NOTHING WRONG, NOTHING ILLEGAL AND NETHER DID PRESIDENT BUSH MOXIE.xx

Gee, don't you know IT'S RUDE TO SHOUT AT PEOPLE IN ALL CAPS! AND IN BOLD TYPE YET! Sheesh!

I never said either one did anything illegal. I did say Rove likely did something wrong in not disclosing two years ago that he was one source of the leak, but I also said that it will be up to the prosecutor to determine if his wrongdoing actually rises to the level of a crime. I never said Bush did anything wrong or illegal. I did say that there are important questions that still need to be asked. After all, Novak's original story about Plame mentioned two highly placed administration officials as sources; we still don't know if Rove was one of them (or if he only talked with Cooper and not Novak) and who else was a source for Novak.

Judith Miller is not procting anyone from Bush's admins. That is absurd.

KF, how is it that you know this when not even the federal prosecutor knows it? Let's try this again, since you seem incapable of grasping it: Novak said in print that his two sources were from the ADMINISTRATION; the whole point of the investigation is to find out who these two ADMINISTRATION people were. And for some reason, the prosecutor thinks that Miller has some information on this, even though she has never written anything on it.

She does not even like them. Why would she go to prison for Bush or Rove or anyone else for that matter?

How do you know she does not like them? She has written many stories that have been favorable to the administration.
She went to prison to protect a promise she gave to her source. Sorry if you don't understand why someone would do that, but it's very similar to how a doctor might go to prison rather than reveal confidential information about a patient.
Weren't you outraged when a prosecutor wanted access to Rush Limbaugh's confidential medical records? It's the same concept with reporter/source confidentiality.

SHe is most likely protecting herself.or another reporter.

The point of the investigation is to find out who in the ADMINISTRATION leaked information on Plame to Novak. Why would she or another reporter need protecting, since they are not in the ADMINISTRATION? Why would they have any knowledge of any of this unless they had talked with someone in the ADMINISTRATION?

[kwanfanatic2002]

I don't care if you don't like the blod type. That seems tob e the onlly way to get your attention. You all ae so wrong on so many levels.it is laughable and embarrasing. You want to talk about RUDE MOXIE, good grief.this board is full of rude comments.ROve is not the source of the leak. It has been proven. That is just something you all cannot accept. get over it.sheezs:(
Rove said either yesterday or early today that he heard about VP from Bob Novak.

The prosecutor has already said that Rove is NOT A TARGET.I am sure you are not getting that on the extremely BIASED PRESS.

This had been proven to be a NON Story and you all cannot accept it. I could not care any less that he voted for Bush 41. He has stated clearly he will never for a Republican. He cannot tell the truth that he is lib. because he is trying to cover his backside. He also stated he voted for Kerry, supported him and Hillary. SOunds like a lib to me.

You all are a classic example of a party out of control and imploding badly. :( YOU cannot handle the truth. You have been given fact after fact after fact and you cannot handle it. YOu want to talk about LIES AND DECEPTION. JOE Wilson and Plame can tell you all about that. You cannot get Rove or Bush this time (AGAIN)) and you cannot handle that either. THey are innoncent. Judith Miller is in jail to protect herself, another reporter or her husband or Plame. The truth will come out eventually and you all are going to look foolish. Like always.Rove and Bush have nothing to hide.

Shumer and Reid tried desperately yesterday to pass a bill to get Rove and it sadly, oh how sadly FAILED:) .Frist in turn tried to get the security clearance for Harry Reid and Dick Durbin overturned for their REAL security leaks. They need to have them taken away and they should be sent packing.

I have to give you all an A+ for effort. But, it is all for naught. Rove and WIN AGAIN.

[madison]

Blind allegiance is a very dangerous thing, KF. VERY dangerous.









Think for yourself

[kwanfanatic2002]

You would know all about that ML, just the the rest of your possee. Thinking for yourself is something you all should seriously considr. I have no problem thinking for mysel. You just don't like the FACTS.

MOxie, I guess it's only OK for the dems to use CAPS and bold type. Ok, I get it.

This is in Michelle Malkin's blog today about this whole mess.

Sources who have revealed some of the testimony before the grand jury say that there is some SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT REPORTERS were in some cases alerting officials about Plames identity and relationship to Wilson--- not the other way around.

AP's lead graf:

Presidential confidante Rove testified to a grand jury that he learned the identity of a CIA operative from journalists.

John Podhoretz says even Joe Wilson now admits that his wife wasn't undercover the time she was outed.
Mroe Rove mania and the media mystery deepens (http://Michelle)

The facts keep getting in the way for you dems. sorry about that. Your theories are shot to h---.

[madison]

Who said?:<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sources who have revealed some of the testimony before the grand jury say that there is some SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT REPORTERS were in some cases alerting officials about Plames identity and relationship to Wilson--- not the other way around.<hr></


I believe 'leaking' grand jury testimony is illegal. Anyone know?

[tongueincheek]

MOxie, I guess it's only OK for the dems to use CAPS and bold type. Ok, I get it. Say what? YOU were the one shouting in caps and bold. Unless you're a "dem" and we just didn't realize it. :x

[kwanfanatic2002]

I am not shouting and the dems have done it many many times, just go back and re-read previous posts. I ventured into the left side recently ( then had to go throw up) and saw it a lot there.

[tongueincheek]

You always say that and then you never provide specific examples. Try posting a link. That's one thing those "dems" are good at.

And yes you were shouting. Using caps and bold on the internet is tantamount to shouting.

Here's the link to where you were *shouting*
p216.ezboard.com/fmichellekwanforumfrm22.showMessageRange?topicID=6 3.topic&start=21&stop=40 (http://p216.ezboard.com/fmichellekwanforumfrm22.showMessageRange?topicID=6 3.topic&start=21&stop=40)

[kwanfanatic2002]

I was trying to get a point across and that is somehow the only way to get a point across to the left.

[tongueincheek]

My point is why do you say it's only okay for the dems? I haven't seen any "dem" shouting. Only you. You have accused, but you still haven't provided a specific example. Again.

[kwanfanatic2002]

I am not the only one who does it. and I have already said go back and re-read other posts. Look in the left leaning side. I am not venturing in there any more. You are so wrong. You obviously need to get your eyes checked then.

[tongueincheek]

So you can't provide an example then. I thought so. Just you ranting again.

[kwanfanatic2002]

You wouldn't know honesty if it hit you in the face.

if you would read the link you would see that PLAMES LAWYERS said it.

I would like to know where the outrage is and calling for the oustr of John Kerry and his security clearance and jail time for him when he blew the cover of CIA secret operative FultonArmstrongduring the John Bolton confirmation hearings for UnAmbassador. This was even after the Agency asked that his identity be kept secret.

Kerry asked Bolton "Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed for his position?, accoring to a trnascript excerpted by the NYTimes".
"The answer is YES", the Democrat continued.

In his response to Kerry, Mr. Bolton did his best to maintain the agent's confidentiality, reverting to the Armstrong pseudonym.

Apparently the CIA Directive wasn't good enough for Kerry- who outed Armstrong anyway and later defended the move saying the Republican Colleague, Sen. Lugar , had also mentioned the name.
Yeah, that's right, blame it on someone else and don't take responsiblity for your actions. I am soooo glad this "man" is not President.

[kwanfanatic2002]

How many times do you have to hear something. Lookf or yourself. I am not doing it for you. I am not ranting, you just cannot admit it. end of story.

First of all, my name is not honey, stop patronizing, and I am not a reporter. never claimed to be one, would never be one. I would rather be hungry than have to be like the reporters are today. don't like the truth huh!!!!.

[tongueincheek]

Honey, when a reporter writes a news story, he doesn't tell his readers to go out and find their own backup documentation and sources. He does that himself. So when you make wild accusations like this, it's up to you to prove it. You don't tell the readers, "this is true, but you have to go out and prove it yourselves."

Okay, kwanfanatic2002, whatever. :rolleyes So long as you realize that it only reflects badly on you.

[manskater]

TonguenCheek and Moxie -- you are my heroes and don't you see its like knocking your head against a brick wall?:rolleyes

[tongueincheek]

Hee! Yes, manskater I do. But I do get a kick out of it. :lol

[mr pru]

manskater-

It's fun just to push the buttons on certain people.

It's like when a doctor tests your reflexes by tapping your knee with that hammer.

They just can't help it-their leg kicks out automatically.

It's weird (and kinda' neat) to have that kind of power over some people.

I'm not a mean spirited person. Some people just ask for it.

[moxie]

ROve is not the source of the leak. It has been proven. That is just something you all cannot accept. get over it.sheezs
Rove said either yesterday or early today that he heard about VP from Bob Novak.

KF, I don't know how you can possibly say this, given events of the past two weeks that are all a part of official records:

1. Matt Cooper finally agreed to talk with the federal prosecutor about his source, but only after a letter was filed (by Karl Rove's lawyer on behalf of Rove) that granted Cooper a release from Cooper's promise to keep Rove's name confidential.
2. After Cooper testified, he said publicly in a brief statement that he had testified that Rove was indeed his source.
3. Your own statement (above) that Rove was discussing VP with Bob Novak. Because, by his own admission, Rove didn't really know the details of VP's status with the CIA & didn't know whether talking about her was a security risk, he should have said "no comment" to Novak. But because he instead chose to discuss it, he became a "confirming source" of the original information.

You said above that "it has been proven" that Rove is not the source. Proven by whom? Sources and links, please.

[kwanfanatic2002]

I don't see how you can say he is the source. That is ridiculous, just look at the FACTS. Not the lefts version of the FACTS. Cooper is lying thru his teeth, like Wilson and Plame. Got to Hugh Hewitt, Powerlineblog.com, Michelle Malkin.com. Hannity.com, etc. etc, etc. That is your left side version of the truth. Even the prosecutor has said Rove is not Guilty, and is not a target. i know that is hard for you all to believe, but the truth hurts sometimes. it is ironic that Schumer voted against the very law he is accusing Rove of breaking.

Valerie Plame's old supervisor has come out and said that she was not even a "covert agent". Her neighbors and friends even knew what she did. She outed herself on her third date with Wilson, during a "makeout session". Wilson's words, not mine.

According to a blog on powerlineblog.com, there is an article in the WaPo that says Judith Miller herself is the source.
More Plame to go around (http://powerlineblog.com)

[mr pru]

You're almost as good a "spin doctor" as Rove is.

You can look outside and see the rain pouring down and then try to tell us that it is snowing. You'll use such childish rants as "get over it"-"sick, sick, sick"-"pathetic", etc...

Never, and I mean NEVER have you personally presented any sort of FACTUAL backup or sources of information.

With each post you present, your ignorance and narrow-mindedness shows through like the sun at high noon on a bright summer day.

The FACT that you expect people of intelligence to buy your emotional garbage is the biggest insult of all.

You constantly brush aside FACTS with a stoke of the keyboard and rant on with some chest thumping nonsense.

Please leave your emotional diatribes in the crib of which you sleep.

[moxie]

I don't see how you can say he is the source.

You said it yourself in this thread when you said Rove talked with Bob Novak about VP. (Or do you wish to retract what you said in your earlier post?) According to Novak, Rove wasn't Novak's original source, but he confirmed Novak's information, which makes Rove a secondary source. And then, as Cooper testified under oath, Rove passed the VP information on to Cooper, making Rove the source of Cooper's information.

These are facts that are on the record. But, as has been stated here & elsewhere, that of course does not mean that Rove is guilty of a crime and it does not mean that he is the target of the investigation. It is very likely that the real target of the investigation is finding out who told Novak before Novak told Rove. If it was Judith Miller who spoke to Novak (which would explain why she is being asked to reveal sources even though she never wrote a story), then the investigation doesn't stop there. The prosecutor still needs to find out how Judith Miller (or whoever Novak's source turns out to be) got that information.

I do wish that Rove has been more forthcoming with this information two years ago; that certainly would have made the prosecutor's job a lot simpler.

[dec5]

Looks like they got nothing on Rove......the press already knew who Wilson's wife was.......:lol She even blabbed
to her neighbors for years!!!! What a fake!!!!!


Next story: A new conservative Justice and a maybe new Chief Justice Thomas (I hope!!!.)

[moxie]

Looks like they got nothing on Rove......the press already knew who Wilson's wife was....... She even blabbed
to her neighbors for years!!!!

For the zillionth time, the central point of the investigation at this point isn't directly about Rove; it's about who gave the information to the reporter (Novak) who was talking about this with Rove. Plame's status wasn't widely known by "the press"; we know of just one reporter (Novak) who is on record before the prosecutor as having known two years ago that she was a CIA agent. It doesn't matter that she wasn't on an undercover mission at that point; revealing her identity ruined any chance for the CIA to use her in that capacity in the future. (And if she was blabbing to people in violation of her security clearance, then she should be investigated, too.)

Rove doesn't appear to be in trouble for what he did two years ago, but it's possible there are some obstruction of justice issues for those in the administration who said two years ago that Rove was not involved in any way, when in fact he was.

[manskater]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/)
Reporter: Rove was first source on CIA leak
Time magazine's Cooper says woman's name was not disclosed

I love it when those in this administration try to act so holier than thou and then have so much dirt at their front door.:rolleyes

[moxie]

Yes, absolutely.

However, I do think at this point that Democrats and other administration critics should not be quite so gleeful about all this, at least while the investigation is still shaking out.

Ask questions & keep some pressure on, yes; gloat & act holier-than thou, no.

[probativev]

Next story: A new conservative Justice and a maybe new Chief Justice Thomas (I hope!!!.)

Why Thomas? He's mediocre and our Supreme Court can do much better than having him as a Chief Justice. If you want to toe political line, that's fine, but why settle for mediocrity?

Why can't anybody get pass their political opinions and support someone for their qualifications and intellect instead for once. I'm no conservative but Rhenquist has been a brilliant Chief who has done a terrific job as Chief. Besides, his opinions are well written. In fact, I love his sense of humor and sarcasm in his opinions. It would be a regress to have Thomas as Chief after having Rhenquist. Sorry, Thomas just doesn't compare. Besides, he's just Scalia light. You might as well support Scalia if you want to go that way. At least Scalia has real opinions.

[Terri]

His motive was to prrevent Cooper from reporting false facts in a Time Magazine story about Wilson.

Firstly, I need to understand what false facts are. They can either be false or be facts, but they can't be both.

[mr pru]

Agreed.

False facts??!!??!!??

Isn't that a classic oxymoron?

[Terri]

Fact 1. Rove is hiding nothing and signed a waiver.

Well the second part is fact but the first part is opinion. Rove's supporters can only hope that he's not hiding anything but I guess we'll know the truth when the findings of the investigation are presented.

Fact 3: Wilson's wife was a desk jockey not a field operative.

Well that's funny because some of Rove's supporters are claiming that she was so powerful that she was the one that sent him to Niger in the first place. She was neither a desk jockey or a field operative btw. She was on the fast track in the CIA. Desk jockey implies someone of little or no importance. Maybe now she might be considered a desk jockey since her promising career was cut short by someone's or somebodies' reckless mouth(s).

[manskater]

Terri77 -- Where have you been?? Its so good to see you here again.:D

[kwanfanatic2002]

However, you all need plenty of it. You need to get your FACTS straight. Your version of he facts don't wash. For the zillionith time, Rove did nothing wrong. The left cannot handle it.The REAL TRUE FACTS have been presented adnauseum here. Your immaturity is showing here. Get a grip and accept reality. Mr. Pru, you and the rest of your left or indpets need to get a clue. Plames owqn supervisor has stated that she was not even a covert agent. Plame is the one who is responsible for her husband getting that assisgnment in Niger. Sounds like neputism to me.
It is also ironic that Cooper's wife is an adviser of Hillary Clinton. Another reason you cannot believe what he says.You cannot believe what she says, or her husband.

The left is going after Rove because they don't like it that he helped to get President Bush elected and they want to get rid of him so he won't help other Senatorial or Congressional candidates get elected. They are trying to give the American people the impression that Pres. Bush and his staff and the Republicans as a whole are dishonest and cannot be trusted, so the left will get more votes in 06 and 08. That will not work. You are trying to discredit this admins. and the American people are smarter than that and will not fall for it. Instead of trying to undermine this admins. why not try and work with them and come yup with equitable solutions to the problems facing America today instead of bashing and lying about them. It only makes you look foolish and turns people away from you. Hence, the Republicans winning of elections. You will not win elections acting the way you are now. It is not worth even listening to anything anyone from the left has to say now. The ratings for the alphabet news have dropped drastically, newspapers ratings are down. Cable news ratings are down. The old media is on its way out and the new media is taking over. The left can no longer be trusted.

Fitzgerald has had problems with Miller in the past. During the Muslim Holy Land Foundation, when they were sending money to terrorists. They denied it saying they were sending the money to help charities. Miller got a tip from a CIA "Anoymous"
source and tipped of the Foundation before the FBI could get there and they started shredding documents.
(I had temp job right down the street from there when it was going on. I remember the day it happened, I had a hard time getting out of that area after work, so I could go home. They had parts of the streets blocked off). It happened in Richardson Texas- a surburb of Dallas. It semes like Miller does not have any credibility at all. Certainly she does not now.


If Rove was the source, then Wilson would be singing like a bird. I find it ironic that the left is so up in arms about this, but they are quite when Kerry spilled his guts about a real CIA oeprative. Where is the outrage then????? What a bunch of hypocrites. The hyprocrisy here is at it's finest.

[Skatekwan6]

(This message was left blank)

[mr pru]

KF-

Please define "neputism"

[Sparks]

Maybe it has something to do with being from Neptune? 8)

[moxie]

For the zillionith time, Rove did nothing wrong.

KF, how is it that you know this, when the investigation is still going on?

[kwanfanatic2002]

Moxie, for the zillionth tiem, read the papers, listen to the radio. THe prosecutor has already said ROVE IS NOT A TARGET.
I know this is hard for you libs and indps, but the truth is the truth. Plame was outed several yrs ago by the CIA, she was not a covert agent, Rove was called by Cooper, not the other way around. He used an underhanded tactic to try to get some info from Rove and now is lying about it. Wilson is lying about a lot of things. It is sad how the left cannot let this non story go. It is over and you once again failed to get Bush or Rove.

[moxie]

Rove was called by Cooper, not the other way around. He used an underhanded tactic to try to get some info from Rove and now is lying about it.

So what? It was Rove who blabbed to Cooper about Wilson's wife, not the other way around. I would hope that a person in Rove's high position would be experienced and savvy enough to deflect a lowly reporter's "underhanded tactic" without blabbing about what could have been a matter of national security. And why do you think Cooper is lying? He testified under oath to a federal prosecutor. Why would he risk going to prison for perjury, over something that you don't even think is a crime?

Also, it doesn't matter whether Plame was actually part of an undercover operation at the time Rove blabbed about her. His loose talk prevented the CIA from ever using Plame again for an undercover task (after spending thousands of dollars on training her). And, since part of Plame's cover was working for an international company, Rove's talk about her could have placed other employees in danger from anyone who thought others in that company were also CIA agents.

Of course, none of this means that Rove is actually guilty of a crime. He may have just been indiscreet. But we'll just have to wait until the investigation is completed, won't we?

[moxie]

KF, just found this on one of your favority sites, newsmax.com:

Speaking to National Review Online's Byron York late Tuesday, Rove attorney Robert Luskin said Fitzgerald "has told Rove he is not a 'target' of the investigation" - despite media reports suggesting otherwise.
Fitzgerald has also made it clear, however, that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe, Luskin told York.

So, according to Newsmax, we can say Rove is a "subject" of the investigation.

This distinction is important because "subject" is a more neutral term than "target" (which conveys some presumption of guilt on the part of the investigator) and thus is a term that any neutral prosecutor would prefer to use instead of "target" in the midst of an investigation.
But, in reality, their meaning is essentially the same.

[kwanfanatic2002]

Moxie, Rove did not perjer himself. he did not keep the CIA from using Plame ever again. This is ridiculous. WHere do you get? That is just more liberal media lies.

ANdrew McCarthys article in the national review says that the CIA OUTED PLAME 10 YRS ago.

He states further that no crime was committed in the communication of information between the Bush admins officials and Novak, but that no crime could have been committed because the governing law gives the person a complete defense if an agent's status has alredy been compromised by the govt.

You won't read that in the newspapers or hear it on the national news or cable news networks. The left is angry over Rove helping Bush get elected. They have not gotten over the 2000 or 2004 election and are trying anything they can to get Bush and Rove. Once again they have been proven wrong. They cannot let it go. Now Barney Frank wants to impheach Rove without even waiting for the investigation to be over. Sounds like a bunch of angry sore losers who need something to get Bush and Rove. They have nothing to get Bush or Rove with.

[moxie]

Moxie, Rove did not perjer himself.

I was referring not to Rove but to Cooper, who you accused of lying. Which would be perjury.

[jamieguo]

Regardless of the details, the bottom line to me seems to be that whether Valerie was covert or not at the time, or Wilson a jerk and liar, Rove has a loose mouth at best. He also smudged the truth, even if his careful statements didn't out and out lie about his knowledge of the affair. This doesn't speak well of high moral standards conservatives pride themselves on. Does the adminstration need someone like that so badly they'll ignore someone of such dubious actions? Come on, who needs someone like that, a blabbermouth, in a wartime Washington anyway?

My guess, yes, unless there's more coming from the investigation. Democrats are trying to gather what little guts and moral backbone they have to make the most of a scandal that in other times then in post 9/11, would probably lead to a very different leadership in Washington, as it did in Watergate.

[4dogknight]

And why does the timing of the announcement surprise no one!

Bush takes media by the horns after days of trouble (http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-07-19-media-mix_x.htm)

{snip}
"President Bush had no control over when Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would step down. But announcing her successor — and when — was his call.
In doing so in prime time Tuesday, Bush took advantage of his bully pulpit and news media cycles to argue that appeals court Judge John Roberts is the right choice for the nation's highest court.

Analysts said the timing was also designed to take media focus away from the troubles facing Bush's embattled adviser, Karl Rove.

Meet the Press host Tim Russert told anchor Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News that every Republican he had talked to on Tuesday said, "Thank God the White House is changing the subject."

{snip}
"The timing "certainly illustrates that one of the great powers of the presidency is the power to change the subject," Court TV News anchor Fred Graham said. "Bush was back on his heels over Karl Rove, and this announcement wipes Rove off the front pages, for a time."

Probably not for long. A Pew Research study Tuesday showed that half of Americans are paying attention to news reports that Rove may have leaked classified information about a CIA operative. And 58% of those following the reports closely say Rove should resign.

"This is not going to go away," said Harvard media analyst Alex Jones, partially because "the media are too personally involved" now that New York Times reporter Judith Miller has been jailed for refusing to testify in the case."

COMMENT: No comment is necessary on this matter. It's plain as day and everyone can see why it was done when it was done.

4dk - But then I could be wrong -----NOT!

(moved from the VP thread)

[dec5]

Next story: A new conservative Justice and a maybe new Chief Justice Thomas (I hope!!!.)

Edited by: dec5 at: 7/17/05 12:29 am



:lol Told you guys.....the picking of a Supreme court Judge is now the main story. Or maybe it was a intentional GW bate and switch tactic....:lol

Karl Rove who????? ;)


This Judge thing is gonna be a big battle for sure...



CONFIRM ROBERTS!!!!!


Give him a up and down vote!!!!

[moxie]

The Supreme Court is the main story right now, because the nominee has just been names & there really aren't any new developments in the Rove case. But in a few days, talk about Roberts will die down (at least until Senate hearings actually start) & the Rove matter will likely again be front-burner.

These two stories will both get a lot of talk over the next few months.

[kwanfanatic2002]

The left will bring it back up again after they finish trying to villify Roberts and his wife. The LA Times(I belive it was them) have a front page above the fold article about Roberts WIFE and her stand on abortion.... she is obviously pro LIFE and that drives the left crazy. That is their premier issue. I cannot believe how they are going after Roberts. Schumer, Kennedy and his liberal cronies are already attacking Roberts.

I agree dec5. he deserves one.

[Sparks]

Let's get back to the original topic.
Here is an excerpt from an article about why Karl Rove, 'Scooter', and others' efforts to discredit Wilson are very important (plus being just another political dirty trick):
The Bush administration needed to assert that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Taking that line posed a huge challenge. On the one hand, a new threat had to be created/hyped out of thin air; and, on the other, the pundits had to be too lazy to refresh their memories on what senior U.S. officials had said about Iraq's military capability before 9/11.
"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." (Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001)
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." (Condoleezza Rice, July 29, 2001)
These statements went quickly down the memory hole. Immediately after 9/11, administration officials, with Vice President Dick Cheney in the lead, began to warn that Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" were just over the horizon. On August 26, 2002, a month after senior U.S. officials had explained to their British counterparts that intelligence was being "fixed" around a policy of war, Vice President Dick Cheney was the first to use that fabricated and twisted intelligence to deceive Americans at large. In a major speech he claimed:
"We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors -- including Saddam's own son-in-law."
In fact, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, had told us just the opposite: "All weapons -- biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed," he told his debriefers in 1995. Everything else he told them was true. And so was that. Kamel had been in charge of those programs; the weaponry was destroyed at his command.
But no matter. Cheney's speech, and the subsequent National Intelligence Estimate cooked to his recipe, allowed the president to raise the specter of mushroom clouds over U.S. cities, to force a yes vote in Congress for war and, not incidentally, to win back the Senate the following month.
The Iraq-Niger lie was thus both the cornerstone of the Bush agenda for war and the key to unraveling how the "fixing" worked. Rove, master of the administration's strategy yet only two years out of Texas, joined by Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis ('Scooter') Libby spread red herrings to divert reporters off the scent and wound up triggering the eventual appointment of a special prosecutor and the convening of a grand jury.
So it was the president's and vice president's own men who brought the skunk to the picnic -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. He shows no inclination to join in the fun and games, and still less to speak prematurely, or to speak at all. Rather, Fitzgerald appears to be a real pro, and as long has he can avoid being fired, he could potentially take all the fun out of things. "Neo-conservative" pundit William Kristol was clearly reflecting growing uneasiness when he commented recently that Fitzpatrick is "the problem for the White House; we have no idea what he knows."
About the author:
Ray McGovern works at Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He had a 27-year career as an analyst at CIA and is on the Steering Committee of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

[EigthAv]

Let's impeach em all. The President,his entire administration,the entire Congress and all the judges.Let Anarchy reign! Put Howard Stern in charge,with Mikey Moore as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ozzy Osbourne as Minister of Music and Public Education.Everybody roll a good joint,turn up the music and ledz all get neckit. Have some fun before the insects eat us alive and take over the World. Before you pass it off as a bad joke,shhhhhhhhhhh............you hear them? they are coming to get you!<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->The first virus will be delivered slowly.Something to make you sleepy.........can you hear them?

[4dogknight]

Oh 8A, you are so clever. How do you come up with these little treasures of yours?

4dk